Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash

M/S Hcl Technologies Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT (TDS), Noida

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HCL Technologies Ltd, ACIT(TDS), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida PAN: AAACH1645P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv., Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv., & Shri Arpit Goyal, C.A. Department by : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR, Date of Hearing 15/07/2020 Date of pronouncement 20/07/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : 1. This appeal is filed by the by the assessee…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-04 vs. M/S Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…devolved on M/s Kavaljit Singh & Sons HUF prior to the engagement of the Hindu Succession Act. He places reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar vs. Ram Prakash (1988) 2 SCC 77 and Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad &Ors.(2018) 7 SCC 646 to contend that the property inherited by a male Hindu from his father is an ancestral property in which not only his son but also his grandson and great-grandson acquire an interest by birth. He also places reliance on Allah-diya & Anr v. Mt. Sona Devi AIR (29) 1942 Al 331 to contend that when a Hindu obtains possession of a share in the ance…

CIT vs. J. H. Finvest Pvt. Ltd

Bench: The Trial Court) Under Section 96 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Cpc”) Against The Judgment & Decree Dated 10Th September, 2014, Passed By The Additional District Judge-17 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi In Suit Bearing Cs No. 398/2014, Titled As Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr. Versus Ram Kishan Tokas & Anr. (“Impugned Judgment”). 2. The Appellants Had Filed Cs No. 398/2014 Seeking A Decree Towards Recovery Of Firstly, Possession Of The Corner Shop Measuring 15 X 9 Sq. Ft., Situated In Property Bearing No. E-108/2, Opposite Community Centre, Bgn Market, Munirka Village, New Delhi (“Suit Shop”) & Secondly, Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards Damages & Compensation For The Period From 01St July, Digitally Signed By:Hariom Sharma Signing Date:15.12.2025 20:56:25 Signature Not Verified

…7 and 49 of the 1908 Act. The Court cannot admit it in evidence, as per the judgment in Anthony [Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons, (2000) 6 SCC 394]. A coordinate Bench in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad [Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad, (2018) 7 SCC 646 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 702] has reaffirmed this view, referring to Section 49 of the Registration Act. This is a prohibition for the Court to implement and even if the trial court has taken it in evidence, the same cannot confer legitimacy to that document for being taken as evidence at the appellate stage. The parties cannot by implied consent…

Director of Income Tax vs. Jal Hotels Co Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…devolved on M/s Kavaljit Singh & Sons HUF prior to the engagement of the Hindu Succession Act. He places reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar vs. Ram Prakash (1988) 2 SCC 77 and Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad &Ors.(2018) 7 SCC 646 to contend that the property inherited by a male Hindu from his father is an ancestral property in which not only his son but also his grandson and great-grandson acquire an interest by birth. He also places reliance on Allah-diya & Anr v. Mt. Sona Devi AIR (29) 1942 Al 331 to contend that when a Hindu obtains possession of a share in the ance…